The editor and publisher of an Indian newspaper have been arrested in Calcutta for “hurting the religious feelings” of Muslims.
Ravidra Kumar, editor of The Statesman, and the paper’s publisher, Anand Sinha, were both arrested after police received complaints that the top English-language Indian daily reprinted an article from the February 5th edition of The British Independent.
The article, entitled “Why should I respect these oppressive religions?” discussed the diminishing of the right to criticize religion.
Journalist Johann Hari, noted for his secularist views, writes that “a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia… issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within ‘the limits set by the Shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community.’”
via Winds of Babylon: Indian Editor and Publisher Arrested for Criticism of Islam.
This is article, thanks to BCF:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that “a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people”. It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it “Western”, Robert Mugabe calls it “colonialist”, and Dick Cheney calls it “outdated”. The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to “respect” the “unique sensitivities” of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within “the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community”.
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists (who are of course, putting on suicide vests or beheading those who do not want to convert… 😛 ).
Incredibly, they are succeeding.
Wow… the truth hurts, doesn’t it? And yes, they are suceeding. Normal people are not doing anything to stop this. So the writer of the article is now appalled by the reaction of his article… although he stands by what he wrote. Anyway, he discredits himself absolutely by writing this:
If, after all the discussion and all the facts about how contradictory and periodically vile their ‘holy’ texts are, religious people still choose fanatical faith, I passionately defend their right to articulate it. Free speech is for the stupid and the wicked and the wrong — whether it is fanatics or the racist Geert Wilders — just as much as for the rational and the right. All I say is that they do not have the right to force it on other people or silence the other side. In this respect, Wilders resembles the Islamists he professes to despise: he wants to ban the Koran. Fine. Let him make his argument. He discredits himself by speaking such ugly nonsense.
Wilders wants to ban the Koram because in the Netherlands ALL books which support hate are banished (remember Mein Kampf? It is banned in the Netherlands). So why some are and the Koram (which calls for the unbelievers killing and it’s trully judeophobe) isn’t? But hey, it’s much better to judge before one has read about the guy, isn’t it?
With such defenders of free speech, we are going down the drain… 😦